City Council To Discuss Several "One Home Per Lot" Issues On Friday



House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard oringially part of home next door

One Home Per Lot, a grassroots multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement monitoring the legislation and building of sideyard houses, sent a recent update on the issue of developers building homes on side yards, inlcuding information on a City Council meeting on Friday from 9:30-11am.

Laurelhurst residnts living around these tall, skinny houses, as well as other residents citywide, have joined One Home Per Lot, whose website explains the issue in detail, shows how to get involved and details Duffus' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake, to name only a few throughout Seattle.
Several skinny houses on small lost have sprouted up in Laurelhurst over the last few years, the work of developer, Dan Duffus, who is well-known around the city for building the houses which are modern in style, tower over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood..

One is located at 4812 NE 40th Street in Laurelhurst, which sits on a piece of property 30 feet wide, and was segmented out of a side yard which was a total of only 80 feet wide. The house covers all the land, except for 10 feet of the house's previous yard.

One Home Per Lot's recent email says:

Many One Home Per Lot supporters are wondering if the Seattle's Department of Planning and Development (DPD) tried to pull a fast one on us a few weeks ago.

The City Council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee's sent out email that DPD was planning to present some "omnibus amendments" to the committee on 9/25/13. 

Omnibus amendments are supposed to be insignificant changes to Seattle's building codes. The omnibus report introduction states: "The proposed amendments are called 'omnibus' amendments because DPD packages a collection of amendments that are small scale, with a limited scope of impact. Such amendments include correcting typographical errors and incorrect section references, as well as clarifying or correcting existing code language."

However, included among the amendments were a number of items of great benefit to the developers of backyard / side yard houses. These are not insignificant items at all but rather dramatic code changes that would make it easier for developers to squeeze more houses into backyards and side yards throughout the city (see the details below).

After a couple of our members contacted councilman Richard Conlin (the chair of the PLUS committee) about this, his assistant sent the following note:

"Just a procedural note: the omnibus has been removed from tomorrow's PLUS meeting agenda. The legislation will not be discussed until after budget, at the Special November 22 PLUS meeting (9:30 - 11:30)."

Then Councilman Conlin followed up with a note of his own:

"Thanks for the note. I agree that we need more time to understand these amendments and determine what their impact will be, so we have postponed beginning our review until late in November."

Having now had some time to reflect on this event, One Home Per Lot supporters are split into two camps about it:

1. Some of us feel this is just the nature of a government bureaucracy: Some well-meaning workers at the DPD probably just lumped some backyard / side yard code changes in with other code changes without thinking. But with multiple lawsuits now pending against the DPD regarding this issue, and a mountain of media coverage surrounding it, you would think that everyone in the DPD would know that this is a hot-button topic, and any new building codes related to backyard / side yard houses should be included in the regulations that the DPD is currently writing having to do with regulations that are part of the recent emergency moratorium. 

2. The majority of our supporters feel that DPD was using the omnibus amendments as a tool to quietly push through some building code changes that might otherwise get bogged down in the current backyard / side yard house legislation. Furthermore, these supporters are concerned that the DPD will use this omnibus tool again in the future to quietly push through other building code changes related to backyard / side yard houses. If that's the case, it doesn't much matter what changes get approved by the City Council in the high-profile public hearings scheduled for November/December, because DPD can always push through changes to them using these omnibus amendments.

If an eagle-eyed supporter of our cause hadn't picked his way through the many pages of dense, complex text in the omnibus report, these changes may have simply been rubber-stamped by the PLUS committee.

THE OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS AT THE HEART OF THIS MATTER

(Remember, omnibus amendments are supposed to be "correcting typographical errors and incorrect section references, as well as clarifying or correcting existing code language")

1. Most backyard houses are built on alleys (it's the only way they can get approved). The omnibus amendments proposed to 23.22.100.C, 23.24.040.A, 23.28.030.A would kill the requirement that these houses have actual frontage on the alley -- which would open up more backyard lots to development, make them less neighborhood-friendly, and make it harder to fight any fires in these homes.

2. Another omnibus amendment proposed to 23.53.005 would reduce the amount of street frontage that a backyard / side yard house would be required to have. This seems to be a direct contradiction to the street-frontage changes that the DPD is proposing as part of the small-lot legislation currently being drafted. In its most recent small-lot legislation recommendations, the DPD tightened up the street-frontage requirements because many developers of backyard / side yard houses were manipulating the rules in order to wedge their projects into lots that are obviously too small. Here, the DPD is proposing loosening the standards.

3. Most backyard / side yard houses already push the boundary limits to the extremes in order to wedge the largest house possible into a backyard or side yard. The omnibus amendments proposed to 23.44.014.C.2, 23.44.014.D, 23.44.014.D.6, and 23.44.014.F would now allow some structural features of these houses (eaves, chimneys, etc.) to extend even beyond those boundaries (into the surrounding yard space) so that, as the DPD document states, "to allow a structure in a side yard adjacent an alley."

 

4. Accessory dwelling units (otherwise known as mother-in-law-apartments) are also backyard / side yard houses. And the omnibus amendment proposed to Subsection 23.44.041.B.2, Table B for 23.44.041, and Exhibit A for 23.44.041 are proposing height-calculation changes that would allow ADUs to be built even taller in the future.

5. The omnibus amendment proposed to Table A for 23.76.004 would automatically classify any future development standards as Type I -- which means citizens have no way to protest them. Seems like a slippery slope.

If you can't attend Friday's meeting, but would like to weigh-in, contact thefollowing:

- The chair of the PLUS committee, Councilman Richard Conlin, 206-684-8805, richard.conlin@seattle.gov

- The director of the Department of Planning and Development, Diane Sugimura diane.sugimura@seattle.gov

Comment Now On DPD's Latest Recommendations For Skinny Homes on Side Yard Lots

House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard oringially part of home next door

 

The Seattle Department of Planning and Development is again asking for public input on a new set of recommendations regarding the future development of backyard / side yard houses.

 

In March, DPD released a preliminary set of recommendations in March, followed by a a final  set of recommendations in June. However, DPD received such a large amount of public feedback on those recommendations that they took the unusual step of revising its recommendations on September 16, which is what they are now seeking public feedback on.  City Council will begin formally discussing this issue again next month, when public hearings will be held.

 

DPD's final recommendations will be used by the Seattle City Council to create new building codes for backyard / side yard houses, "which is why it's important that you comment on them now.  If you want things to change for the better, you have to speak up" One Home Per Lot, a grassroots multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement monitoring the legislation and building of sideyard houses, said in a recent email.

 

"The DPD and City Council count the number of emails and phone calls they receive regarding this issue and use that figure to measure citywide support/displeasure.  Recently, they expressed great surprise at receiving 100 emails from concerned citizens," the group added.

 

One Home Per Lot has written a sample letter included at the end of this post to submit to DPD.

 

Comments should be sent to both of the below people on or before Wednesday: 

- Andy McKim (Land Use Planner -- Supervisor): Andy.McKim@seattle.gov
- Richard Conlin (Seattle city council member): richard.conlin@seattle.gov

In Laurelhurst last year, a new property was segmented out of a larger one to build a tall skinny new house built on a very small lot, originally at 4812 NE 40th Street, and now with a new address of 4810 NE 40th Street, just southeast of Laurelhurst Park.

Duffus purchased the 80-foot wide property which included the whole of Lot 27, 30 feet of Lot 28, and 10 feet of Lot 26 (on which the garage was built). Duffus contacted the City for a letter stating whether the 30 feet of property that was once part of Lot 27 qualifies for development as a separate legal building site according to the Land Use Code.

Nick Jenkins, a Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house, in Laurelhurst wrote a blog post last year, on his experience with the new construction home right next door to him.

The skinny houses, which typically start at $700,000, are wedged into undersized lots, standing 25 feet tall (30 feet if they have a pointed roof). "To the surrounding neighbors, 25- and 30-foot tall backyard / side yard houses "feel like guard towers, cruise ships or skyscrapers," One Home Per Lot says.

 

One Home Per Lot which consists of Laurelhurst residents living around theses house, as well as others citywide,  explains the issues in detail, shows how to get involved and details the developer, Dan Duffus,' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake.

 

Here are some of the changes DPD reccommends: 

1. New houses built on smaller backyard / side yard lots will be limited to two stories in height. The height for backyard / side yard houses (on lots 3,200 square feet and smaller) would be limited to 18 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof). However, in a nod to the architectural community, the DPD will allow developers to build as high as 22 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof) if the house is limited to two stories, and the additional height is applied to the first floor.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods, because three-story backyard / side yard houses block views and sunlight and stare down on all of the surrounding houses/yards. But the fact that these two-story houses can still be 27 feet (as tall as a three-story house) is very concerning. Why can't they simply be limited to 18 feet, which is the same height as the current standards for backyard mother-in-law cottages (technically called detached accessory dwelling units)?

2. More historic documents will be removed from the list of items that developers can use to claim a backyard / side yard lot was always intended to be developable.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods because many backyard / side yard lots were never intended to be developed separately (and certainly never developed with towering, three-story structures). Now, developers will have to produce more reliable documentation showing the original owners really did intend to create a separate developable lot.

3. Three changes will be added to the building codes to prohibit developers from dividing one lot into two sub-standard lots "in creative ways" only to qualify the new lots for the less-restrictive sub-standard building codes.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods because it closes a number of loopholes a handful of developers have been using to squeeze backyard / side yard houses into places where they clearly don't belong.

4. Small, undersized lots that are now restricted from development (because they're smaller in size than the current 5,000 square foot minimum), would become developable -- if the lot was equal in size (or larger) to the majority of lots on the same side of that block. Developers will also be allowed to knock-down an existing house on one of these lots and build something new.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is NOT GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods where the majority of lots and houses are especially small in size (West Seattle, Fremont, Wallingford, Eastlake, Beacon Hill and many other traditionally working-class neighborhoods). It means new houses as tall as 27 feet (22 feet plus five additional feet for a pointed roof) will be allowed to be wedged into the midst of small, one-story cottage houses. Tall houses in these neighborhoods look especially out of place.

One Home per Lot general comments: 

DPD did NOT recommend implementing any kind of mechanism for notifying the neighbors when one of these projects is approved for development. The fact that neighbors have no warning before construction crews show up and start building a new house in a neighboring back / side yard is something that leaves many homeowners absolutely seething. The fact that this lack of notification also deprives those homeowners of filing a LUPA lawsuit within the required 21-day window is most likely also illegal (a federal lawsuit against the city of Seattle is currently pending in federal court regarding this matter).

In our discussions with the DPD and city council, we have made it clear that this is a top priority for neighbors/neighborhoods. A local IT director actually volunteered to show the DPD how to quickly and easily implement an automated notification system.

Here is Councilman Conlin's response to City Council's unanimous decision to extend the 6 month moratorium last month:

MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

On Tuesday, September 3, I introduced emergency legislation to impose interim minimum density requirements in rapidly growing urban centers, urban villages, and station areas designated as pedestrian zones. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent valuable property in these areas from being developed with projects like stand-alone stores with large areas of surface parking. Such projects are contrary to our Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan policies for these areas and could limit our ability to meet our goals under the Growth Management Act.

I have long supported the idea of minimum density requirements in areas with high land values, frequent transit and an active streetscape, but public attention to this issue was prompted by three proposed new projects. CVS Drug Stores is proposing free standing stores in the West Seattle Junction, Queen Anne, and Wallingford, with possibly more in the future. These are vibrant, growing neighborhoods and the community is concerned that the proposed designs for these projects are inconsistent with the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood. This legislation is a response to concerns voiced by community members and City officials about such kinds of development and is designed to set a pattern for the future.

Zoning has traditionally focused on limiting the size and density of development by setting maximum heights and density, called “FAR”, which stands for Floor Area Ratio. The FAR is the amount of floor space developed on a parcel compared to the size of the property. Thus an FAR of 2, for example, would represent twice as much floor space as the footprint of the property. Usually the FAR is a limitation on the bulk and scale of a project – a developer may be allowed to build, say, four stories, but have an FAR of 2, which means that a blocky building could only occupy half of the land area, or, more commonly, the building is modulated to occupy some larger portion, but with setbacks or other features on the upper floors to create a more compatible design.

Generally, in neighborhoods that are attractive for development, projects will be built out at or near their maximum FAR, and the City’s growth planning projects future growth capacity based on that outcome. Our neighborhood plans envision denser development around traditional commercial/retail cores, with additional height and density allowed to encourage housing over the commercial space. Because of the financial rewards for building larger buildings, zoning these areas usually results in development that is at or close to the allowed densities.

Even in areas where the City is still having difficulty in attracting investment, such as the SE neighborhoods around the light rail stations, when investment takes place it still most often builds out to the preferred densities. This is the Seattle model, sometimes called the ‘New Urbanism’ model that has developed over the last two decades with the revival of urban areas.

But what can we do if a property owner decides to create a building that is totally out of character with what we are looking for? The most common type of such development are retail stores that have a high financial return per square foot, and that are designed to attract auto traffic as their major customers. These are most often free standing coffee shops or drug stores.

A few years ago, Walgreens moved into Seattle with a store model that called for exactly that. In some cases, such as just north of Columbia City on Rainier Avenue, the neighborhood and City were unsuccessful in trying to get the store to be built along more urban, pedestrian-oriented lines (although we did get the company to include a smaller structure that fronts on the street to make the project less like a strip mall). When a similar project was proposed at Broadway and Pine, in the heart of a rapidly developing neighborhood, the community rose up and ultimately persuaded the company to make the store part of a mixed use development with several floors of housing.

Unfortunately, once a project has started down the path to permitting, it is very difficult to stop it or significantly change it legally. Washington law recognizes that property owners generally have the right to develop under the regulations in effect when they apply for a permit so this legislation will likely not affect these three current projects.

The legislation will do two things. First, by establishing a minimum density of 1.5 to 2.5 FAR (depending on the maximum height permitted in the zone) it will prevent further projects like this. Being structured as emergency legislation allows the City to stop the immediate threat posed by inappropriate development proposals, and put interim regulations in place immediately while we write permanent legislation that can address the nuances and complexities of legislation that affects many different neighborhoods.

Second, by sending a clear message that the City will take appropriate steps to curb development that does not fit our growing commercial neighborhoods, we will challenge those who want to push cookie-cutter, strip-mall development into our pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods to rethink their approach. Such developers might be startled by the depth of neighborhood demands for MORE development, not less. Knowing that the neighborhoods and the City are on the same page will help to generate pressure for them to back off on their incompatible proposals. It will also embolden the Design Review Boards, who are also unhappy about such projects, to use their powers to try to make the developments better. Together, we may be able to turn such projects around – and we have to try!

Regardless of the impact on projects already in the pipeline, we will have started down the path of establishing a zoning pattern that will make development work better in the future. By creating a minimum density regulation, we will help foster the kinds of neighborhoods that both the City and our neighborhood plans call for. And we will move a long way towards a zoning pattern focused not on preventing what we don’t want, but at encouraging what we want. That is the best approach for our urban future.

Here is a letter the Laurelhurst Community Club wrote last month to Councilmember Richard Conlin and

Members of the City Council regarding Small Lot Development in Single Family Zones

Dear Councilmembers and Mr. McKim:

The Laurelhurst Community Club Board of Trustees (LCC) supports CB 117898, which would extend the current moratorium on development of incompatible buildings on undersized single family zoned lots. LCC appreciates DPD’s efforts to develop workable solutions to address infill development, but the current proposal falls short in protecting the integrity and livability of Seattle’s neighborhoods. 

Building height, minimum lot size, application of the 75/80 rule, height, bulk and scale issues, and appropriate notice to affected property owners remain critical issues.

LCC looks forward to reviewing and commenting upon a revised proposal. In the meantime, LCC urges you to support extension of the current moratorium. Thank you for considering our views.

Here is a sample letter to submit by Wednesday written by One Home Per Lot:

 

Dear Mr. McKim (and councilman Conlin),

In the most recent set of DPD recommendations regarding backyard / side yard houses (Directors Report, September 16, 2013), you've made some good steps in the right directions, but your recommendations still don't go far enough. I suggest the following:

1. The 100 Percent Rule should be struck from the recommendations. If enacted, this rule would free up hundreds if not thousands of new backyard / side yard lots for developers and make it far easier for developers to hunt them down. While it may ensure that any new lots are comparable in size to their surroundings, the houses constructed on those lots will surely overwhelm all the surrounding structures (see my note #3 below). Plus, the 100 Percent Rule simply greases the skids for what the developers really want: The 80 Percent Rule.

2. The height for backyard / side yard houses (on lots 3,200 square feet and smaller) should be limited to 18 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof). This is the same standard currently used for accessory dwelling units, and those have been well received by most neighborhoods.

3. There should be no height exception for backyard / side yard houses built above grade. Your current above-grade recommendations would result in more 27-foot tall structures. Even if the structures were limited to two "habitable" stories, they're still the same size as a three-story structure, which means they would still have many of the same damaging impacts for the surrounding neighbors (loss of sun, loss of views, etc.).

Plus, current Seattle building codes allow for a "habitable attic" (which does not count as a story). Combining that loophole with your 27-foot height allowance would allow developers to construct a three-story, fully habitable house. The lesson: If you allow a 27-foot structure to be built, developers will find a way to make it fully habitable, right up to the pointed roof.

4. All future backyard / side yard house projects should be classified as Type II developments, which would be an easy way to provide the surrounding neighbors with the notification they so dearly want. It's heartless to not provide the surrounding neighbors with advance warning -- and an opportunity to lodge a complaint with a hearing examiner -- when one of these projects is approved for development. And it's illegal to not provide citizens with the advance notice needed to file a LUPA lawsuit within the 21-day window.

Thirteen months ago, the city council enacted an emergency moratorium and directed the DPD to suggest some solutions to the problems brought on by backyard / side yard houses. If the end result of those efforts is simply a three-foot reduction in structure height, and a new process for developers to use when qualifying their backyard / side yard developments, you will have done yourselves and the citizens of this city a great disservice.

I implore you to adjust your recommendations as suggested above.

 

Comments Due Tomorrow To City DPD On Skinny Side Yard Houses In Response To Their Draft Proposal On New Regulations And One Home Per Lot's Analysis

House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard oringially part of home next door

 

 

 

 

before picture of same location 

Tomorrow is the deadline to submit comments or appeal on the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD)'s draft proposal on tall houses built on small side yards, which was released on June 27, as well as DPD's related environmental review (under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and decision.

 Here are instructions for commenting and the appeal process. The draft ordinance, Director’s Report, and SEPA materials are on DPD's project documents page.

City Council's Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee will first review the amendments, followed by the City Council, who will then hold a public hearing, most likely in August. The goal is for the permanent standards to be adopted by September 2013, as intended under interim Ordinance number 123978.
Information about the draft ordinance, Director’s Report, and SEPA materials are here.  For more information, contact Andy McKim at 206-684-8737 or andy.mckim@seattle.gov.

Several skinny houses on small lost have sprouted up in Laurelhurst over the last few years, the work of developer, Dan Duffus, who is well-known around the city for building the houses which are modern in style, tower over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood..

One  is located at 4812 NE 40th Street in Laurelhurst, which sits on a piece of property 30 feet wide, and was segmented out of a side yard which was a total of only 80 feet wide. The house covers all the land, except for 10 feet of the house's previous yard.

The Seattle Times reported that the 1924 house and side yard were sold to a developer for $815,000 in 2012, then it was resold without the side yard for $760,000. The new 3-story home next door is expected to list for $1.5 million dollars.

John Taylor, who lives directly behind the new home, commented in a recent  Seattle Times article, that  looming presence over his back yard is like “a guard tower.” He said the neighbors had no notice from the city or the developer that a new house was being crammed in between two existing houses, on what had been the old house’s yard.

“The city identified the side yard as a separate building site even though it had never been taxed as such and had never been bought and sold as such,” Taylor said. “What offends me is that it’s completely unexpected and random.” 

Nick Jenkins, another Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house, has posted his experience going through the construction process and now living with one of these houses right next door to him. His blog post titled "There goes the neighborhood and yours may be next" can be found here

Laurelhurst residnts living around these tall, skinny houses, as well as other residents citywide, have joined a multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement called One Home Per Lot in which the website explains the issue in detail, shows how to get involved and details Duffus' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake, to name only a few throughout Seattle.

DPD writes in their review, which lists new regulatations that  "new construction in neighborhoods will better meet the needs of current residents as well as new residents and owners who acquired a property before the adoption of the new requirements will maintain a reasonable opportunity to benefit from their investment."

And the end result will be that "our Land Use Code amendments will help promote new construction that fits in with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods."

One Home Per Lot says that "not surprisingly, DPD finds the changes will not have an adverse impact on the ecological environment. In general, the recommendations are a good step, but don't go far enough to satisfy us. Thankfully, the DPD has decided not to recommend the ridiculous "80 Rule" promoted by the developers' paid lobbyist."

Here is One Home Per Lot's recommendations after reviewing DPD's recent release of the draft proposal.

Here is the latest update and news regarding their battle against backyard/side yard houses:

NEW NEWS COVERAGE
KOMO TV is the first to report on a three-story, ridiculously skinny side yard house now under construction in the Roosevelt neighborhood.  The lot is only 1,750 square feet, and the foundation for the house measures just 30-feet by 18-feet. Yet, at three-stories, this toothpick of a house will loom over all the neighboring homes. The developer was able to get approval for the project just days before the emergency moratorium took effect last year. Now that construction
has begun and neighbors can see the impact, the community is rallying in opposition.

THREE LEGAL CHALLENGES NOW PENDING
Two neighborhoods and one independent homeowner have now taken different aspects of this issue to the courts. All three cases are now pending (two in county superior court, one in federal court), and any one of those could set a precedent in how backyard/side yard houses are constructed in the future.

DPD'S FINAL RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TO BE PUBLIC IN WEEKS
As you know, the city of Seattle Department of Planning and Development floated some preliminary solutions to this issue (changes to current building codes) in March and asked for feedback from citizens.

We expect the city council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability committee to officially start reviewing, debating and revising those recommendations at the end of July (we understand it takes about 30 days for other city departments to review the recommendations before the city council can start working on them).

The Seattle City Council has less than 10 weeks to debate the issue of small lot development internally, get public input and draft final legislation.

Public hearings (your chance to publicly sound off on the issue again) will most likely occur in August.

Note: If the city council is not able to do all of the above, and vote on a final bill before September 10 (the end of the temporary emergency moratorium), the moratorium will be extended.

NEW CITY WEBSITE
The city has created a new website to keep you better informed about this issue.


WHAT ONE HOME PER LOT IS DOING
The One Home Per Lot workgroup that's been lobbying the city and DPD from the beginning recently established an end-game strategy and will now begin implementing it. But to be successful, they'll need your continued support -- and your help gathering more supporters (see note below).

WE NEED MORE REGISTERED SUPPORTERS
Please encourage those people to sign up to receive our emails directly from One Home Per Lot here on our new supporter registration page.  Please take a minute to sign your name to the list -- and ask your friends and neighbors to sign it as well (anyone who thinks backyard/side yard houses need more controls placed on them).  We need to show the city council that there's widespread support for our efforts to reign in the spread of backyard / side yard houses.

Gathering more supporters, and officially documenting their numbers, is going to be very important moving forward. City council insiders have made it abundantly clear that we need our supporters to make themselves visible -- and make themselves heard -- if we're to be successful in overcoming the developers' professional lobbying efforts.

Here is a sample letter to City Council:

Dear friends,

The citizens' group responsible for Seattle's temporary moratorium on new backyard / side yard houses is gearing up for a final push to reign in the spread of these structures (full-size homes being built in the backyards and side yards of existing homes).

I'm a supporter of their efforts, and they've asked me to encourage any interested friends and neighbors to also become supporters.  Becoming a supporter of the One Home Per Lot group takes less than 30 seconds. There's no obligation on your part (no requests for membership, money, etc.), the updates they send are very helpful, and your personal information will not be shared, sold, spammed or otherwise abused. It's just a loose-knit group of citizens trying to make a difference on this issue.

FIRE HAZARDS
Allowing backyard / side yard houses to be built 27 feet tall (with a pointed roof, as currently proposed) only adds to the fire risk for all the surrounding structures.

The "engineered" construction materials used for these projects (to reduce costs and speed construction) are created with glues and chemicals, which makes them far more flammable than traditional wood. The taller they are, the hotter they burn (and the harder they are for firefighters to extinguish). Plus, remember, most backyard / side yard house are only required to have a five-foot setback from the property line -- which puts these fire hazards within easy striking distance to the surrounding homes.

It's a very dangerous combination. And fire departments across the country are sounding the alarm.

Will Seattle's city council listen?

Here's what the National Fire Protection Association has to say about the subject.
 

 

Laurelhurst Resident On City Panel To Discuss Development of Tall, Skinny Houses on Single Family Lots Tomorrow Night

The Department of Transportation and Development (DPD) is having a panel discussion, representing different views, to explore some potential permanent standards on developing small single-family lots, tomorrow from 6-7:30pm in the Bertha Knight Landes Room at City Hall.

A Blog reader told us that Laurelhurst resident John Taylor, whose home is directly impacted by developer Dan Duffus' tall skinny house currently under construction at 4812 NE 40th Street, is the neighborhood representative on the panel. The reader said that he "is extremely knowledgeable and articulate, and will represent Seattle homeowners well."

"While there won't be an opportunity for public comment at the meeting, it should be a good discussion of the issue by three panelists," another reader commented.

The developer's house, southeast of Laurelhurst Park, sits on a piece of property 30 feet wide, which was segmented out of a larger one, only 80 feet wide. Many of Duffus' houses sit only 3 feet from the next door neighbor's house.

Dan Duffus is well-known around the city for building these tall skinny houses on very small lots, of which the houses are modern in style, towering over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood.

Tomorrow's panel discussion information says:

Please join us for a panel discussion about the City of Seattle's effort to update standards and exceptions for developing on small lots in Single Family zones.

DPD recently determined that development under current standards is often out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Interim measures were put in place to prevent additional permits on these small lots while this issue is being studied.

The panel presentation will discuss the issues that we will address when the code is amended. Panel participants will include a neighborhood representative, and representatives from the King County Master Builders and the Seattle Planning Commission.

Online comments and written comments will be accepted from the public through December 3. 

As Duffus began to buy numerous lots througout Seattle to build his tall,skinny houses, a number of Laurelhurst residents as well as otherresidents throughout the city affected by this type of developments,joined a multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement called One Home Per Lot.

Their website explains the issue in detail, shows how to get involved and details Duffus' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake, to name only a few throughout Seattle. Here are photos of Duffus' homes throughout the city.

Nick Jenkins, a Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house in Laurelhurst posted his experience on his family Blog this summer, with the new construction home right next door to him.

Following tomorrow night's panel discussion, DPD will prepare recommendations for code amendment legislation, likely available for public review by mid-December. Around March of next year, City Council will be holding a public meetings on the issue.

The emergency ordinance will remain in effect until the new rules/regulations are implemented (and the emergency ordinance can be extended if need be). The legislation requires lots to be at least 50% of the size of a legitimate building lot and restricts the size of houses in lots smaller than 3750 square feet to that of an accessory dwelling unit. Here is an article in the Seattle Weekly about the legislation.

(picture courtesy of DPD site)

Stop Skinny House Developments In Laurelhurst And City-Wide By Calling City Coucil Today Before Vote On Monday

There has been a positive development in the fight against Tall Skinny Houses like the one that is currently under construction at 4812 NE 40th Street, Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin is planning to introduce emergency legislation followed by a City Council vote on Monday at 2:30pm to stop the continuation of tall, skinny houses. 

Here is an in-depth post from early August on the Laurelhurst Blog.

Sue, a Laurelhurst resident, told us that "efforts are heating to limit the proliferation of these houses and that Laurelhurst neighbors can take action immediately for Laurelhurst and citywide to and avoid future unwelcome structures on subpar lots that may exist near then -- by contacting members of the city council immediately and asking each one to support the emergency legislation proposed by Councilmember Conlin, described in more detail below.

Sue siad that "Private citizens who care about neighborhood character, privacy and property values need to speak up as developer, Dan Duffus, is mustering support to fight the vote on Monday".

Information One Home Per Lot posted recently:

It's a very positive development for us. that  Councilman  Conlin is planning to introduce emergency legislation on Monday.

However, there's a problem: Dan Duffus, one of the most prolific builders of these backyard/side yard monstrosities is already trying to put a stop to the ordinance. He's writing to all his builder and real estate friends and asking them to contact, and schedule meetings with, city council members (his actual email is included below for your review).

Obviously, we need to counteract his efforts with an email/phone calling campaign of our own. We need to show council members that homeowners don't want anymore of these things built in their neighborhoods. The folks making all the money from these structures are going to be throwing their weight around; now we need to step up to counteract their efforts.

FIVE WAYS YOU CAN HELP
1. Share this information with your friends.
2. Contact as many of the City Council members as you can (especially the council members Duffus is planning to meet with: Richard Conlin, Sally Clark, Jean Godden, Bruce Harrell, Tom Rasmussen) before noon tomorrow (Friday). Suggestions for what you could write/say are included below.
3. Sign the petition asking for a moratorium on these monstrosities
4. Post a comment on the OneHomePerLot website
5. Attend the council session on Monday when city council members will vote on this emergency ordinance.


MORE ABOUT THE EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

Here is what Councilman Conlin wrote in an email yesterday:

Want to let you know that the heat is on – today I introduced emergency legislation that would require lots to be at least 50% of the size of a legitimate building lot and would restrict the size of houses in lots smaller than 3750 square feet to that of an accessory dwelling unit. 

This legislation will stop the big houses while we work on a permanent fix.  Councilmembers are supportive, but Duffus has already told us he will fight it, so we will need much support.  It will come to a vote on Monday, and, as emergency legislation, will take effect immediately as soon as the Council votes it.  I am attaching a copy.

Here is an article in the Seattle Weekly about the legislation.


CONLIN'S EMERGENCY LEGISLATION DOCUMENT:

Council Bill Number: 117572
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.44.010 and 23.44.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adopt interim development regulations to prohibit incompatible buildings on undersized single-family-zoned lots; and declaring an emergency requiring a three-fourths vote of the City Council so that the ordinance may take effect immediately.
Status: In Committee
Date introduced/referred to committee: September 4, 2012
Committee: Full Council
Sponsor: CONLIN
References/Related Documents: Related: Clerk File 312516
Fiscal Note: Fiscal Note to Council Bill 117572
CITY OF SEATTLE ORDINANCE __________________
COUNCIL BILL __________________
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.44.010 and 23.44.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adopt interim development regulations to prohibit incompatible buildings on undersized single-family-zoned lots; and declaring an emergency requiring a three-fourths vote of the City Council so that the ordinance may take effect immediately.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council ("Council") makes the following legislative findings of fact and declarations:
1. The Council finds that land use code does not currently include appropriate development standards applying to single- family-zoned lots that are significantly less than the minimum lot size allowed; and, 2. The Council finds that the lack of appropriate development standards applicable to single-family-zoned lots that are significantly less than the minimum lot size allowed has resulted in new single-family dwellings that are, based on their height and lot coverage, out of scale and
incompatible with adjacent existing single-family dwellings; and 3. The Council finds that the City is currently studying permanent changes to Chapter 23.44 of the Seattle Municipal Code that will result in new development standards addressing the problems created by new single-family dwellings on lots significantly less than the minimum lot
size allowed in single-family zones; and 4. The Council finds that adopting interim standards will allow appropriately-sized single-family dwellings on these single-family-zoned lots to continue to be built during this interim period; and
5. The Council finds that it has the authority to establish interim measures as granted by Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution, and the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A, RCW, and declares that an emergency exists; Section 2. Section 23.44.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 123809, is amended as follows:
23.44.010 Lot requirements
B. Exceptions to Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The following exceptions to minimum lot area requirements are allowed, subject to the development standards for undersized lots in subsection 23.44.010.C, except as limited under subsection 23.44.010.B.2: 1. A lot that does not satisfy the minimum lot area requirements of its zone may be developed or
redeveloped separately under one of the following circumstances: d. The lot has an area at least 50 percent of the minimum required, and was established as a separate building site in the public records of the county or City prior to July 24, 1957, by deed, contract of sale, mortgage, (( )) platting or building permit, and falls into one of the following categories:
C. Development standards for certain lots that qualify for the exception to minimum area in subsection 23.44.010.B.1.d. Development of any principal structure on those lots that meet the conditions outlined in subsection 23.44.010.B.1.d but have a total area less than (( )) 3,750 square feet shall comply with the ((
1.The height standards of Section 23.44.012.A.3. )) standards for gross floor area and structure height contained in subsection 23.41.041 Table B, rows f and k, that apply to a detached accessory dwelling unit on a property of the same
dimensions, in addition to complying with the other development standards for single family dwelling units in the zone.
Section 3. Section 23.44.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 123809, is amended as follows:
23.44.012 Height limits
A. Maximum Height Established.
1. Except as permitted in Section 23.44.041.B, and except as provided in subsection 23.44.010.C or subsections 23.44.012.A.2 and A.3, the maximum permitted height for any structure not located in a required yard is 30 feet.
2. The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot 30 feet or less in width is 25 feet, except as provided in subsection 23.44.010.C .4. ))The method of determining structure height and lot width is detailed in Chapter 23.86,
Measurements.


THE EMAIL DAN DUFFUS IS SENDING TO BUILDERS AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS

All,

This Emergency Ordinance was introduced without warning yesterday and will be voted on MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10th, 2012 at 2.30.

This Ordinance IF PASSED BY 7 OF THE 9 Councilmen’s VOTE will put an immediate stop to development of Lots under 3,750 sq feet for one year while the Council Studies new code amendments which will most likely contain many of the same provisions. This is the largest taking by City Council since the 1988 Small Lot Ordinance, it is without due process. The fact they are calling it an “Emergency” is a farce in itself in that that same code has been in effect for almost 25 years now pertaining to Small Lots.

Who this will affect? Consumers who buy these homes. Builders who build these homes and most importantly, the Senior Citizens who currently own a majority of the current legal lots in the City of Seattle (Estimated 80-85% of all small buildable lots are owned by Senior Citizens or Estates of Deceased folks who owned them).

What can we do? I have been overwhelmed by calls and emails. I may not be able to respond right away myself. However, you and all your contacts have a voice. I have a meeting set up with Richard Conlin, Sally Clark and hopefully Tom Rasmussen. Larry Cobb and I are trying to get a meeting with Jean Godden as well. Mark Knoll is trying to set up a meeting with Bruce Harrell. If you have any contacts with any other City Council people, please call them and try to get a meeting.

Here are the key talking points you should make if you do contact a City Council member.  An Emergency Ordinance is not justified since the code has been in effect for over 20 years. The taking without Due Process for potential sellers puts an un-fair burden on those owners.  People in process with DPD under the current code could be greatly financially impacted by this taking.

Get on those phones and emails! Thanks everyone.
Dan Duffus


TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DAN DUFFUS AND THIS ISSUE
 July 25 Seattle Weekly article
OneHomePerLot website
Laurelhurst Blog Post


COUNCIL MEMBERS CONTACT INFO:
206-684-8806, tim.burgess@seattle.gov
206-684-8800, mike.obrien@seattle.gov
206-684-8802, sally.clark@seattle.gov
206-684-8803, nick.licata@seattle.gov
206-684-8807, jean.godden@seattle.gov
206-684-8805, richard.conlin@seattle.gov
206-684-8801, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
206-684-8804, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
206-684-8808, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov


SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT CITIZENS MIGHT WRITE/SAY
• You could mention the fact that developer Dan Duffus is writing to builders and real estate agents in an effort to squelch the ordinance -- and point out that those are the entities that are benefiting from this loophole (not the elderly folks he mentions in his "talking points"). The truth is, the original property owners for whom this loophole was created (in 1957; 55 years ago) have all moved on (the current owners don't even know the hidden second lots exist on their property; see item #5 below).
• To justify this emergency action, you should mention the fact (as reported in the Seattle Weekly July 25th) that the Bothell-based research firm New Home Trends is about to launch software that will make it a snap for developers to hunt down the hidden second lots necessary to build side yard/backyard houses. That means, if something isn't done now, there's going to be rush of these projects once the software launches.
• You could note that the current owners of homes with these hidden backyard/side yard lots usually have no idea one exists on their property (developers have to hire experts to find them); which means developers are able to buy the person's property at a dramatic discount to its actual worth, turn around and build a second house on the property, then sell everything at a huge profit and move on to the next project.
• This is a totally random way to try and increase density (no one, not even the Department of Planning and Development knows where these historic lots are located in the city, and only a select few properties have them).
• There's no neighborhood notification when one of these hidden backyard/side yard lots is put into play (and developers like it that way). Home owners have no warning that one of these three-story monoliths is about to pop up in their neighbor's back or side yard until the bulldozers show up.
• You might make note of the fact that developer Dan Duffus (the guy trying to squelch this emergency ordinance) is an insider who brags on his website about his contacts in the city and the Department of Planning and Development
• Council members are extremely busy. To quickly get them up to speed on this issue, you could include a link to the Seattle Weekly article about this emergency legislation (which includes links to the OneHomePerLot website and the original Seattle Weekly article)

View from neighbor's back yard